What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's All Laugh At West Ham

S

SugarRay

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2011
7,984
11,110
Public sentiment won’t allow the stadium to be flogged in order to be knocked down. That’s before the legal ramifications that would come with Levy and co ( Barry Hearn and Orient was also part of that I believe )
If allowed, the compensation claims would be huge!

The owners of the stadium need to make better use of it for other events. Concerts, other sports etc, get it being used as much as possible so it starts making more money. Once it’s up to break even or there abouts, the controversy will quieten down and it’ll just be left with West Ham struggling. Fuck them. The stadium wasn’t built with them in mind, they aren’t adding any kind of legacy and are merely chancers who sold their soul to try and gatecrash a party they aren’t invited to, welcome at or anywhere near ready to attend.

Their owners selling them a dud is a shame for the fans, but hey ho, they should have had the courage to prevent it before it happened. They didn’t have the bottle to stand up and say no, this isn’t happening. Levy see it all happening years ago.
He played them all like a fiddle! Them dozy bastards were crowing about their victory over us in the race for the ground too!
Just goes to show, there’s levels in every walk of life.
 
Tafspur

Tafspur

Where self-belief is a giant, talent is a dwarf
Dec 1, 2011
768
1,223
Knees up Mother Brown
A circus run by clowns
Down the table you must go
Into the Championship Ho Ho Ho!
 
Lilbaz

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
spurs said:
A lot of West Ham fans are clinging to the hope that either GSB or a rich Chinese / Arab consortium will one day modify the stadium. Can you wise people, confirms few things for me please:
1) is it Premier League rules that fans must be covered by a roof? I thought that was true but couldn’t find any evidence. If it is true, it means it’s impossible to move the seats closer to the pitch without extending the roof which I guess is either very expensive or impossible.
2) Didn’t Levy ensure that the running track had to stay for 99 years? Few journalists or people on kumb seem to mention this. If there is a legal requirement in place, do you think it would stand up against public pressure?
3) am I right in thinking that the council pay for some level of security ( and police?) but if WH want more they have to pay for it?
4) wasn’t the original structure only designed to last ~20years?

Short term, the stadium is a disaster for WH and the tax payers and the only benefit is to GSB and this thread. I just can’t work out how this can be resolved in the longer term. Boris and co gave WH just a stupidly cheap rent that it is costing the government millions especially as the cost to change the seats has ~quadrupled. I don’t know if the WH rent is linked to inflation or not. If they get relegated, then crowds will drop to ~25k. Do they still need to keep changing the seats? Then the government will lose more money as the rent decreases. Plus there is the fact that if the stadium was originally built as a temporary structure, then the maintenance costs will become horrific. Then there will be a lot of public pressure to do change something. I can see GSB being able to buy the stadium on the cheap at some point in the future. This makes the legal issue of the running track crucial. The good thing is than Khan is not a big fan of Brady (donating to the the Tory party is looking less smart now) - I just don’t know how much room he has to manoeuvre with their contract with WH an where he can squeeze them.
Click to expand...

Uk athletics have 50 year lease.
 
beats1

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,012
29,561
spurs said:
A lot of West Ham fans are clinging to the hope that either GSB or a rich Chinese / Arab consortium will one day modify the stadium. Can you wise people, confirms few things for me please:
1) is it Premier League rules that fans must be covered by a roof? I thought that was true but couldn’t find any evidence. If it is true, it means it’s impossible to move the seats closer to the pitch without extending the roof which I guess is either very expensive or impossible.
2) Didn’t Levy ensure that the running track had to stay for 99 years? Few journalists or people on kumb seem to mention this. If there is a legal requirement in place, do you think it would stand up against public pressure?
3) am I right in thinking that the council pay for some level of security ( and police?) but if WH want more they have to pay for it?
4) wasn’t the original structure only designed to last ~20years?

Short term, the stadium is a disaster for WH and the tax payers and the only benefit is to GSB and this thread. I just can’t work out how this can be resolved in the longer term. Boris and co gave WH just a stupidly cheap rent that it is costing the government millions especially as the cost to change the seats has ~quadrupled. I don’t know if the WH rent is linked to inflation or not. If they get relegated, then crowds will drop to ~25k. Do they still need to keep changing the seats? Then the government will lose more money as the rent decreases. Plus there is the fact that if the stadium was originally built as a temporary structure, then the maintenance costs will become horrific. Then there will be a lot of public pressure to do change something. I can see GSB being able to buy the stadium on the cheap at some point in the future. This makes the legal issue of the running track crucial. The good thing is than Khan is not a big fan of Brady (donating to the the Tory party is looking less smart now) - I just don’t know how much room he has to manoeuvre with their contract with WH an where he can squeeze them.
Click to expand...
1. It is a requirement for it to be UEFA category 4 class stadium that the seats be covered and the PL as well iirc. They definitely spent a lot of money on doing this
2. Answered above
3. Who knows
4. You have to think of the stadium as three separate structures/stadiums,
The top tier was designed as temporary structure with the roof attached, this was intended to be dismantled and then shipped off somewhere else as part of its eco plan as athletics wouldn't need a big stadium after the olympics.
The bottom tier is the original bowl, this made by poured concrete and its worth noting, it was the most expensive part of the original stadium, as it was a permanent feature and it also has two engineering/design problems. The first was that the bowl was built on an island that contained nuclear waste. the second was that the island had issue with the water table so they cant go too low. So these arent major problems but help drive up the cost when considering a rebuild
Gb160 said:
What symbolism?
Click to expand...
So i just googled it for you, but in 1991 west ham launched a bond scheme to redevelop the Boleyn ground, they wanted fans to pay £500, £750 or £950 for a designated seat over 150 years, which gave them priority to buy match tickets and season tickets for that seat

The fans weren't happy and the protests started by a fan running on the pitch and planting the flag at the half way line

Which goes to show, a 150 year contract with the club, West Ham really is a cult
 
Last edited:
Marty

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
40,068
63,440
ValenciaYid said:
"West Ham is known throughout the football world for its history, heritage and heart"

Can anyone provide any evidence of history and heritage?
Click to expand...
WHAM fans really are the worst when it comes to a false sense of entitlement. At least the Scousers have actually won a significant number of trophies.

WHAM have three FA Cups and one Cup Winners Cup, all won between 1964 and 1980. That's it. The honours section on their website has more references to the second tier than anything else, for Pete's sake.

They are an average yoyo club who have had one good 15 year spell of honours in their history, and feck all else. That's their football heritage.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Marty said:
WHAM fans really are the worst when it comes to a false sense of entitlement. At least the Scousers have actually won a significant number of trophies.

WHAM have three FA Cups and one Cup Winners Cup, all won between 1964 and 1980. That's it. The honours section on their website has more references to the second tier than anything else, for Pete's sake.

They are an average yoyo club who have had one good 15 year spell of honours in their history, and feck all else. That's their football heritage.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Liverpool are annoying because they act like it's still their heyday when they've actually been crap/average really for decades, but West Ham have the same sense of entitlement but don't even have any sort of history to back it up whatsoever. Both sets of fans are disillusion but at least Liverpool have at least some basis for it, no matter how thin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mawspurs
Ange believes Spurs ‘heading in right direction’ despite dropping points against West Ham
Replies
0
Views
138
mawspurs
mawspurs
mawspurs
Spurs 2-3 West Ham United - Pre-Season Friendly
Replies
15
Views
2K
JimmyG2
J
bomberH
Let’s All Laugh At Sky/TNT
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
8K
spursfan77
spursfan77
Top